{"id":247,"date":"2017-11-19T23:26:15","date_gmt":"2017-11-20T07:26:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0035\/?p=247"},"modified":"2017-11-19T23:27:42","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T07:27:42","slug":"activity-1-cameras-in-the-classroom-bates-thomas-reflections-on-the-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0035\/activity-1-cameras-in-the-classroom-bates-thomas-reflections-on-the-past\/","title":{"rendered":"Activity 1: Cameras in the Classroom + Bates & Thomas + Reflections on the Past"},"content":{"rendered":"

A\u00a0\u00a0post for my LRNT524 Innovation, Design and Learning Environments class<\/span><\/p>\n

The readings for this week focused on instructional system design (ISD) models. My key take-away is the following statement from Thomas (2010): “The effectiveness of a model is heavily dependent on the context in which it is applied; instructional design methods are situational and not universal” (p. 187).<\/p>\n

Cameras in the Classroom<\/h5>\n

The technological advances of recent years (I could even say months) are changing the way we teach and learn. Just this week, I was surprised by a learner in a Presentation Skills course that I developed for a local organization. I had designed an activity to provide a non-threatening approach to presenting and to introduce the power of storytelling.<\/p>\n

\"Rory<\/a>
Image Source: https:\/\/thecreativityhub-chips.s3.amazonaws.com\/posts\/heros\/247\/main\/247.jpg<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Twelve learners were divided into three tables of four. At each table, one learner rolled six Rory Story Cubes<\/a> which were then used by each learner at the table to write a story to present to the class. One learner didn’t like the cubes that were rolled, so she took a picture of them on her iPhone for her fellow learners, then picked up the cubes and rolled them again. Another learner liked the idea, took a picture of the second roll of the cubes and rolled them again. Soon the learners were choosing between sets of cubes from pictures instead of being limited by the physical cubes on the table.<\/p>\n

I welcomed their adaptation of the exercise. As a result, when they presented they shared a picture of their set of cubes with their classmates before they told their story. One learner who was terrified of presenting voluteered to present instead of waiting to be asked because she was having fun with the activity.<\/p>\n

I am improvisational by nature and welcomed the learners adaptation of the exercise. If I had been stuck in a prescriptive model that did not allow for learner input, I believe the ‘terrified learner’ would have remained terrified and the other learners would not have been nearly as engaged. In the end, they owned the activity and their technology–their own smartphones–became an integral part of the learning environment.<\/p>\n

Notes from Bates & Thomas:<\/h5>\n

Bates (2014) claimed that “the [ADDIE] model is too inflexible for the digital age” because learning environments and learner needs are changing more rapidly than in the past.<\/p>\n

Thomas (2010) made a similar claim for the 11 pedagogical and 11 ISD models summarized in the author’s dissertation on web-based blended learning. In short, although useful for classroom learning, traditional ISD and pedagogical models lack flexibility for keeping up with technological advancements and learners needs in online learning environments.<\/p>\n

Thomas (2010) offers grounded design as a valid approach for blended and online learning environments because “grounded design can be applied to any learning theory platform as well as cross-platform, because it does not promote any single theoretical stance or practical methodology over another”; it is founded on “psychological, pedagogical, technological, cultural, and pragmatic considerations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 234)<\/p>\n

Land and Hannafin in Thomas (2010) describe the five foundations of grounded design as:<\/p>\n